Making a statement: This team of cyclists beat a plane from Long Beach to Burbank, California. Photo: LAist

Over the weekend, a team of bicyclists beat an airplane from Burbank to Long Beach, California.

The closely watched, 40-mile race was a thrilling climax to a story that’s been unfolding for weeks now. “Carmaggedon” — the weekend closure of the 405 freeway — was about car dependency and how the temporary unavailability of a single highway was going to turn a city upside down. (Streetsblog’s Damien Newton got invited to appear on the local Fox affiliate for predicting — correctly, as it turned out — that the traffic nightmare would fail to materialize.)

When they set out to prove cycling could be faster than a $4 flight offered by JetBlue, a group called the Wolfpack highlighted the insanity of the situation brought on by our overbuilt, carbon-fueled transportation system.

The general opinion around the Streetsblog Network today is that, all in all, it was a pretty good weekend for cycling and for rethinking transportation more generally.

Reno Rambler says the victorious Wolfpack proved to the world that cycling is a viable alternative:

All of this begs us to ask a whole bunch of questions about our basic assumption about how we get around in our urban environments. Indeed, even in our car dominated infrastructure, aren’t there better ways to get from point A to point B? Often there are but we are too programmed as a society from birth to expect that we should be able to hop in a 3,000-pound vehicle and drive to the door of the store, our place of employment, etc. Regardless of whether it is three blocks away or three miles away.

The past couple of weeks have seen a flurry of media coverage. Public interest has been piqued and people are actually thinking about transportation policy. Is it worth it to shut down the 405 twice to demolish and rebuild a bridge so that we can add a carpool lane in one direction at a cost of about $1 billion?

Carmageddon is important on another level too. It reveals how insecure a lot of people feel without unfettered access to the roadway network. Although the 405 opened in the 1960s, it seems as if it’s been a part of Los Angeles since time immemorial. To lose access to it, even for a weekend, is, for many, to have one’s sense of order upended. How will I get around without unfettered access to my roads? Could I really do things like walk to a nearby store? Could I really ride a bike? Could I really ride a train or (gasp) bus? Could I really just stay home and relax instead of driving all over town this weekend?

So hooray for the Wolfpack, not just for winning, which we never doubted they would, but for so artfully demonstrating the backwardness of many of our assumptions about transportation.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Pattern Cities explores the proliferation of “Pop-Up Cafes” in former parking spots in San Francisco and New York. M-Bike.org explores the slippery definition of Complete Streets in Southeast Michigan. And the Transport Politic studies transit agencies’ options given the likelihood that their federal funding will be greatly reduced in the new transportation bill.

I think Straight Outta Suburbia overstates the angst (or lack there of) from Carmageddon. The people who were actually complaining about Carmageddon had legitimate reasons, i.e. had to get to work at a Hospital/Airport or had plans that predated the announcement of the closure, i.e. weddings, vacations, etc.

Anonymous

The Wolfpack race shows that bicycling (and public transit) really are practical means of transportation in Los Angeles. I wish that city leaders and the mainstream media played that up more instead of just “Carmaggedon”.

http://www.facebook.com/roymeo Roy Crisman

If only Wolfpack had set up a team of the non-elite to try as well. Or maybe a group of regular commuters AND a group of occasional bicyclists. The NPR story I heard this morning emphasized how they were a hand-picked group of elite which arrived before the plane even took off.

Unfortunately the message pitched that way doesn’t easily lead to “and you can, too.”

Anonymous

who is going to cycle from long beach to burbank? i think all this
proves is that young, fit people who don’t need to carry luggage or take children with them can move pretty fast. and that short-hop flights are inefficient relative to longer flights. neither of those are points are really germaine to the overall discussion of how to improve transit or urban planning.

Anonymous

The Wolfpack is an amateur club, not a professional racing team. Can’t blame them for not having the resources to organize something bigger.

But I do blame the city for not emphasizing more bicycling and public transit, especially during the Carmaggedon weekend.

Anonymous

It proves that there are safe and useful long distance bicycle routes through the city. Maybe you can’t go as fast as these buys (who are not all that young), but even at slower speeds, bicycling is a practical method of daily transportation.

http://vectorcircle.blogspot.com/ angle

I strongly suspect that most traffic engineers and city planners know very well that these monolithic freeway/street projects, like the 405 expansion, aren’t long-term solutions for alleviating congestion or any other transportation-related issue. I think the main reasons they get implemented are: (1) They generate work for government employees; (2) They support the larger economy by keeping legions of private companies in business who depend on the continued use of private automobiles for some or all of their profits (everything from the car companies themselves to government contractors, plastic, metal and glass manufacturers, housing/real estate developers and the media outlets who depend on advertising revenue); (3) They temporarily pacify the general population, who want a quick fix for their frustrating commutes, and, as a whole, aren’t able to conceive of a lifestyle or environment that is not structured around the private automobile.

In short order, traffic congestion again fills the available space, becoming intolerable for the motoring citizenry, who howl for something to be done. Thus, another billion in tax dollars gets appropriated for another massive freeway expansion project.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1336073149 Chris Chaney

The fundamental problem is that ALL Point As and Point Bs are oriented along roads. Everywhere we need to go is right on a road. Wouldn’t it be amazing if we could develop a full community without traditional autocentric roads?

http://vectorcircle.blogspot.com/ angle

This is like someone in 1908 saying that air travel will never be viable since the Wright Brothers’ aircraft can only carry one person.

Joe R.

I hope stories like this get more attention in the mainstream media. I’ve been saying for years that with proper infrastructure human powered transportation can be viable over many tens of miles, not just the typical 2 to 5 miles I often hear quoted. You start with bike roads where a cyclist can get up to speed and stay there, without stopping, for many miles. And you can supplement this with aerodynamic velomobiles which allow an average rider to maintain 20 mph, and a strong rider to go 30-35 mph, on level roads. These two things allow average speeds on par with subway travel over distances one typically associates only with mechanized transit, but at a fraction of the price. The Netherlands is already proving this concept with their growing network of bike “highways”. We should take this next step here also.

Anonymous

@7975e80f1c1771c2b9951d8b96f5c6ab:disqus – so you are saying that at some point cycling technology will evolve so much that your average person would consider a 33 mile bike (um, 66 miles round trip) ride across Los Angeles for commuting purposes? wow. i can’t wait to see that bike. don’t even bother talking about kids or cargo yet….

@saimin:twitter – bicycling 66 miles round trip is not practical for many people.

i am not arguing that bicycling isn’t great. i just think LA is a bigger problem than bicycles can really manage. this is an urban planning, mass transit conversation. cycling will always be an awesome supplement for people who are lucky enough to work close to home, be fit and want to manage the logistics. but cycling is a trivial portion of the solution for a city like LA.

Anonymous

That’s because there IS no “you can too” here. That’s a 66 mile round trip. The point wasn’t to prove the practicality of cycling – it was to prove the massive overhead involved with air travel.

Andy

Dawdler, careful about your assumptions. I biked 80 miles to see a friend the other weekend, and biked 80 miles back the next day. While it’s not an everyday commute, there are many people that ride fairly long distances. I’m not a professional cyclist, and I do own a car, but I prefer to ride a bike for any trip I can.

You say that cycling is an awesome compliment for the “lucky”… I actually chose to live and work in the same city. That may not be easy in LA, but for most of the country, that’s quite feasible. When I post that on blogs there’s bound to be replies about people saying it’s just not possible with their work and families and blah blah blah, but no one is ever forced buy a house in suburbia or take a job in the city. Don’t like where you live/work? You can always move to place where that’s possible. It’s the best life decision I have ever made, and anyone could do the same. Unfortunately most people are better at coming up with excuses as to why they can’t, instead of listening to those that have proven it’s worth.

Joe R.

dawdler-I’ll grant that a 66 mile round trip might be pushing it, but right now I think we’re on the cusp of a major evolution in human powered transportation. I’ve yet to see any relatively inexpensive, aerodynamic human-powered vehicles on the market but I think that may change soon. The standard bicycle is great for short trips at low speeds, or longer trips at moderate speed. However, its primary drawback is a design which requires a rider to expend >90% of their energy fighting wind drag at speeds over 20 mph. With a suitable aerodynamic design, it has been demonstrated that maximum speeds in excess of 80 mph, unpaced, are possible, along with sustained one hour speeds of >55 mph. A road worthy vehicle might not do as well, but I think it’s reasonable to assume cruising speeds of 40-45 mph would be possible on a suitable human-powered vehicle, running on infrastructure which requires little or no stopping for most of the trip. This could allow average speeds as high as 40 mph. If we assume that 45 minutes might be around the maximum most will consider bike commuting viable, then you can potentially expand your commuting radius to 25-30 miles with suitable infrastructure/equipment, compared to perhaps 10 miles now. Sure, human-powered transport isn’t a end all solution, but it could potentially replace quite a bit of inner city travel.

http://vectorcircle.blogspot.com/ angle

@dawdler:disqus - It’s your lack of imagination that’s the limiting factor here.Cars are convenient for transportation because our infrastructure, industries and economy have been built up over the last 100 years to accommodate them. Imagine attempting to use a car today without the benefit of a national freeway system, two-car garages, colossal shopping mall parking lots, filling stations, relatively cheap gasoline… and for that matter, a relatively high-paying job to support the substantial costs of car ownership.There’s no reason that bicycles (or pedestrians) need to be re-engineered in the image of the automobile to be viable transportation; simply, our environment could be gradually reshaped to better accommodate these other modes. Would there be challenges, controversy, consternation and costs involved to do this? Of course… but just imagine how much could have been done towards these ends with that billion dollars that’s being dropped on the 10-mile expansion of the 405. Just imagine.

Anonymous

@7975e80f1c1771c2b9951d8b96f5c6ab:disqus – if the goal is to gradually reshape our environment to eliminate the need for 33 mile commutes (which, by the way, is a great point – I never claimed otherwise), then why try to make a point about how GREAT a bicycle is for a 33 mile (66 mile round-trip) commute?

i think spending time optimizing for masses of people doing long bike commutes is silly.

changing the urban landscape and the economy to optimize for short trips is a FABULOUS thing. i love it. as you said – a hundred years. in the mean time, let’s focus on mass transit and energy policy to at least get people out of their cars and into buses, trains, etc.

there’s a difference between imagination and fantasy.

Anonymous

by the way – the nice thing about focusing on better mass transit is that it plays better with short distance cycling commutes. it’s much more likely that your average person might bike a couple of miles to a transit station than 66 miles a day.

Anonymous

Wasn’t the real winner here (with respect to commuting) the Metro rider? They arrived without needing a pack, dressed in whatever clothes where appropriate for their destination, doing so without any beforehand training, carrying whatever baggage was needed, and unfatigued from the journey. That is a trip that the disabled, elderly, or those with children could take. We haven’t even gotten to the potential need for a shower yet (although I have been on busses where showers have been desired after getting off). Which took only 10 minutes longer than a pack of decently trained cyclists running a team time trial like ride as fast as they possibly could. They should have had a cyclist ride the route alone and need to have their personal hygiene in order.

Joe R.

I agree that the long term goal should be to shorten the need to commute long distances by redesigning cities, giving incentives to employers to allow telecommuting, etc. That being said, you can at the same time design infrastructure which makes long trips under human power fast and practical, even if those trips aren’t daily. That same infrastructure would also speed up the daily, shorter trips cyclists might make by letting them mostly avoid congestion and traffic lights. It’s similar to the analogy of a highway. Few people drive the full length of a highway, but they could if they needed to go the distance. Most just use the highway for a few tens of miles at best. Same thing here. Most would just be on bike expressways for a few miles. A few might go 30 or 50 or 100 miles for an occasional long trip.

http://vectorcircle.blogspot.com/ angle

@dawdler:disqus - A couple of quick thoughts:

1. As I alluded to before, I think of the “Flight vs. Bike” event as a demonstration or showcase, not as a model for soccer moms to follow. Both the bicycle and the automobile were introduced to the public with sensationalized touring shows featuring races and stunts, the exotic vehicles being ridden and driven by highly skilled, often reckless daredevils. A spectacle is often instrumental in sparking new possibilities in the minds of the public.

2. Why be restrictive about choosing long distance vs. short for bikes? Sunset Blvd. is a very, very long street (and a major transportation corridor), but there’s no stopping anyone from using a small part of it for a short trip. Why couldn’t a bicycle network function in the same way?

3. Mass transit is absolutely important, but it is extremely expensive and could (depending on the implementation) continue to encourage a certain degree of sprawl. More importantly, any investments that improve bike and pedestrian trips are future-proof in a way that high-tech solutions are not: they do not depend on cheap energy and complex systems to function. Investing primarily in any one mode of transit puts us in a position like where we are today: hopelessly dependent on all of the tenuous systems and resources that allow the car culture to function for the general populace.

OK, this is just one of the many rude and condescending comments I have read that call the riders in this race (and cyclists in general) “stinky”, malign their personal hygiene and ridicule them for physically exerting themselves to travel somewhere. I have to admit, I did not previously realize how extensively the American public has been brainwashed into thinking that perspiration and physical effort are a social taboo. FYI, Prissy bitches: perspiration doesn’t stink if your diet is generally healthy and avoids lots of processed foods, and maintaining a very modest routine of aerobic exercise a few times a week would allow almost anyone to easily bike 20-40 miles.

El Barto

Nonsense. Take a look at them boys and see how sexy cycling has made them. And yes, keep your diet clean and your body hydrated, get regular exercise so your sweat cleans your pores and you won’t have a smell problem you priss.

http://twitter.com/wolfpackhustle Wolfpack Hustle

There was literally only one person on the team who could be called
“elite” and that was the team captain, 41 y/o John Gabriel known amongst
his wolf brothers and sisters as John the Roadie – a 3 time California
state champion. Yet John is not like regular roadies in that he comes
out to ride with the pack through live traffic every Monday and leads
many of the other urban rides around LA. Most roadies are too scared to
deal with traffic and stay far away. He is like a father and a coach to many of us. He was holding back on this race FYI so that the team could make it together.

The rest of the team, some of whom had only begun riding bikes not 2
years ago, are very much amateurs and regular joes who happened to get
into the cycling craze through our weekly Monday night ride. A perfect
example is Evan Stade, software engineer at Google who moved to LA less
than 2 years ago, got a bike to commute to work, found our ride group
and fell in love with urban cycling. Or the 19 year old Fabian Vazquez
who began riding with Wolfpack Hustle at age 17 and has become a truly
skilled urban rider.

Some of the guys race… now. But they didn’t start that way and they
are in no way professional cyclists. The whole point of our team is that
it is made up of the best of the best of those urban cyclists who show
up every Monday night to ride across Los Angeles county. If you have the
skills and the guts to do that then you have a shot at being on the
“elite” Wolpfack A team. No one gets on Wolfpack A until they’ve proven that they can handle themselves in traffic week after week.

I myself started the ride 5 years ago. I have never raced in any of the
“legit” races and I am extremely proud of the fact that these guys built
themselves into serious urban cyclists in such a short time. It proves
that anyone can do this if they try. I lost 30 pounds on this Wolfpack
Hustle journey and my heart rate is in the low 40′s… Not 5 years ago
my waist size was a 38. Now it’s a 34 and my pants are still not hipster
tight enough… I might need to get a 32… The point is that anyone can ride with us and build themselves into monsters without dedicating your life to the racing circuit. We are commuters first and foremost.

Anonymous

I don’t know about you, but doing anything wearing cycling clothes, especially riding 33 miles at an average speed of 24.4 mph, even in a vanguard, I end up smelling frigging rank. But tell me where do you put your briefcase when you ride a TTT?

J:Lai

This was a very nice publicity stunt, and I think it is great to draw more attention to cycling in an urban environment.

But as a practical substitute for longer commutes (anything beyond a few miles), I still don’t see how cycling can be suitable for more than a small minority.

Even leaving aside the issue of transporting cargo or little kids, most people do not want to show up at work or a social event sweating and needing to change clothes. It is uncomfortable, and despite certain claims to the contrary, even vegan sweat can produce some unpleasant odors.

Most Americans shower every morning. Most new office buildings have showers for employees. Bicycle commuters can just shower at work instead of showering at home in the morning. And if your office doesn’t have a shower, there may be a YMCA or gym down the block that will let you shower for a small fee.

http://Streetsblog.net Angie Schmitt

I love how Americans think one drop of sweat is repulsive but think nothing of being 40 pounds overweight.

http://Streetsblog.net Angie Schmitt

I love how Americans think one drop of sweat is repulsive but think nothing of being 40 pounds overweight.

Joe R.

J:Lai-equipment and infrastructure can make all the difference. Right now, most people only think in terms of a bike on regular streets going maybe 10-12 mph. When you count stopping for obstacles, traffic lights, etc, you’re probably talking an average speed not much higher than a fast walk. This in turn limits the travel radius for a reasonable commute (say <45 minutes) to a couple of miles. If you want to increase that radius, you need to increase the average speed during that 45 minutes. Bike roads without stop lights essentially make your average speed pretty close to your cruising speed. And in a good velomobile 20-25 mph is a nice easy pace, similar to riding a regular upright bike at 10-12 mph, so sweating is a non-issue on most days. Even more advanced HPVs exist on which 40 mph is a nice easy pace. On the days you will sweat, like today, you'll also sweat just walking from the subway to wherever you're going.

The problem thus far as I see it is NYC and other cities are still following the Copenhagen model. This works fine in compact cities like Copenhagen (more accurately these are large towns) which are only a few miles across. NYC and LA are huge. You're right. With present thinking cycling as a transportation alternative will only be suitable for a small minority. If we're willing to build the infrastructure, and also jump start manufacture of aero HPVs (an industry which might be a perfect fit in NYC and/or LA), then travel from the limits of the outer boroughs to midtown via human power will not only be possible, but practical and desireable. With a good HPV plus roads to drive it on, I can even foresee the time when going to my sister's (52 miles each way) wouldn't be much of a stretch, perhaps no more arduous than the trips I take now on my Raleigh to maybe 5 miles past city limits.

It is a *requirement* for good health that we get exercise, and that means getting sweaty. We have built up a culture that compartmentalizes exercise as something that you do solely for the sake of itself, eg, going to the gym. And even though they are more gyms than ever, we are more overweight than ever. Why? Because going to the gym isn’t fun (for the majority of people) and there is no incentive to keep it up. We need to learn that the only way you can get enough exercise it to build it into your routine, ie, make exercise something that you do in the process of doing something else. Humans evolved getting exercise just in the course of doing other things, like getting food, going somewhere, etc. The greatest example of this, of course, is the using the bicycle to get somewhere. But most people drive, and the car is a great example of how we have engineering what used to a great way to get exercise out of our lives.

So I totally agree that people need to get over the sweat thing. Society needs to choose: do you want sweat, or do you want fat? (And by the way, I say “society” because I’m speaking about statistics, that the *average* person needs to make this choice … there are a small percentage of people — elite athletes, for example — who can motivate to go to the gym or just run around for miles for no reason). Further, it’s really not that hard to towel off at work. Or take it easy in the morning on the way to work and push it harder at other times.

Anonymous

@angelaschmitt:disqus As a mentioned in my post below, Mary Collins in her book “American Idle: A Journey Through Our Sedentary Culture” (http://www.amazon.com/American… says it best when she says (and I’m paraphrasing because I can’t remember the exact
quote), “Americans are more afraid of sweat than fat.” It truly is
bizarre that we have engineered exercise so thoroughly out of our
culture that we car more about something as superficial as sweat than
our long-term health.

http://www.facebook.com/roymeo Roy Crisman

Sorry, I believe I heard something like “hand-picked elite averaging over 24 mph” from the Wolfpack representative on the NPR story in the morning. Sounded a little too much like “We’re HARDCORE!” Though you’re calling yourselves “monsters” down below.

But hey, it’s not like I actually did anything about it, I’m just sniping
from the sidelines after the event. (I really don’t intend to be sniping, just commenting–hopefully I can figure out the acceptable way to offer “if only”/”I wish” without being an ass about it.)

So without disparaging the Wolfpack, I still say it would have been cool to have some regular human beings riding there, too. People who have not yet morphed into a team of monsters. That’s not the Wolfpack’s responsibility.

Some of the coverage I saw later (such as on Slate) did take things away from the HARDCORE!! angle, pointing out a rollerblader and transit rider also beat the plane, so I’m sure a slightly slower ride could have also beat the plane by bike. Of course they didn’t know how long the plane would take…

http://www.facebook.com/roymeo Roy Crisman

So, re-reading my original post, I shouldn’t have put the onus of my “I wish” on the Wolfpack…”If only someone had set up a team….” would have been much more appropriate.

Congrats to the Wolfpack, btw. I’m sure there’s going to be a bike-purchasing surge from people you’ve inspired.

Andy

@facebook-747678518:disqus Here’s the math. The Slate article says 24.4mph cycling for 1:34 hours. That’s a total distance of 38.2 miles. The plane got there in 2:54 hours (but had a much longer distance flightpath and a bit of waiting). 2:54 for 38.2 miles means that the overall average speed was only 13.2mph, which is a very manageable speed for most anyone who rides a bike at least a few times a year. So while the cycling club wanted to do it fast, a typical commuter loaded up with a reasonable amount of gear could have done the same route just as fast as the flight, and probably without breaking a sweat.

Andy

And if you do the math, a cyclist could have made the same time as the flight at an average speed of 13.2 mph. As someone that rides frequently, I know I don’t break a sweat at that speed. So all the whining from non-cyclists about how stinky they’d be is just excuses for them to continue driving.

How about instead of complaining about cycling, they actually take their bike out of the garage rafters and try riding to work one day. They might realize that it’s actually safe, easy, and sweat free at the right speed.

Joe R.

Same here, Andy. Unless it’s hot like today, where I’ll sweat just standing outside, anything 15 mph or under (on level roads, of course) is a nice, easy, nonsweaty pace for me. Even at higher speeds, sweating isn’t all that much of an issue 9 months of the year. Crank up the speed, more wind to cool you.

Mig

@ dawdler: You didn’t think think there was a “you can too” in there before this started and you don’t think it now. Some folks may have thought as you did before, but they saw what happened this weekend and changed their mind. You can continue to mold this event to fit in with your opinions, or you can recognize what happened and have this event help shape your opinions.

A lot of topics and points were brought to the forefront by this event and the overhead of air travel is not at the top of my list. I bike occasionally and disagree with your conclusion below. There is something to be said about the practicality of cycling, though I agree it may not be about the travel time for short trips between bikes and planes. I don’t know if you’ve tried recently, but depending on topography and weather, 33 miles each way isn’t as impossible, difficult, or impractical as you seem to make it. Whether or not it is something that people desire or prioritize is entirely different, but to me that seems to me what you are using “practicality” as a proxy for.

Follow Streetsblog

Transportation for America

America's transportation system is half a century behind--causing unnecessary pollution, expense, and congestion. We need our leaders to invest in public transportation, high-speed passenger rail, streets safe for biking and walking, maintaining our roads and transit systems, and green innovation.